The Herald reports the megachain is looking to open one OR MORE baby WalMarts (only 42,000 square feet) inside the city limits. They've already been meeting with the BRA and Mike Ross, among others, in pre-hearing meetings, but not to head off any public controversy about how they will destroy neighborhood shopping districts for miles around but to convince city officials that Bostonians would give their first born to shop at a WalMart.
Ed. wager: How much would anybody bet that their first store will be nowhere near Hyde Park?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Nice Modern Lovers reference
By Jonathan Richman
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 2:25pm
Nice Modern Lovers reference ...
Not that I'd want to see it, but ....
By Ron Newman
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 2:32pm
... would a Mini-Wal-Mart fit in the Ferdinand Building in Dudley Square? These days you can build a multi-level big box store or supermarket with shopping-cart escalators.
(And what is it about Hyde Park that you think makes its population especially resistant to shopping at Wal-Mart?)
Just one thing that would make Hyde Park resistant to a WalMart
By adamg
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 2:52pm
And his initials are TMM.
Maybe if they promise to put
By Dave
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 3:03pm
Maybe if they promise to put up a green sign instead of their regular colors. It worked for one of the other businesses that libs hate.
Bite my cruller
By adamg
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 4:10pm
Oh, wait, they don't make those anymore, right?
I suspect the fancy-shmancy Readville store has more to do with the TMM factor than liberals. But you can have your fancy-shmancy clapboard stuff; I'll take the mural about the sea captain inventing donut holes in the Dunk's on Hyde Park Avenue any day. And I voted for Kerry, so there.
I just find it amusing that
By Dave
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:37pm
I just find it amusing that they made the DD's in Wolcott Sq. go to the gold on green signage so it wouldn't affect the otherwise bucolic village atmosphere with the construction equipment yard and the oil tank removal company on that block.
It adds a festive air to the square
By adamg
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:43pm
All the better to keep in mind as you enter the Tunnel of Doom and exit out the other side into the post-apocalyptic industrial stretch along Hyde Park Avenue.
Real Conservatives Hate Wal Mart too
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:06pm
That's because they don't see why their tax dollars should subsidize a multi-billion dollar business.
Liberals hate Dunkin' Donuts?
By JPSouth
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 11:25am
I thought people who liked the taste of coffee hated Dunkin Donuts?
Uh, yeah
By eeka
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 11:47am
Yeah, their coffee sucks and the place is fugly, but if not liberals, who is supporting all those 237849723894837 Dunkies in a really really liberal state?
Even in a really liberal
By RhoninFire
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:30pm
Even in a really liberal state, there's still plenty of non-liberals. But, I think in this case, the problem is more that we are using the wrong terminology. It is not liberals, for there's large swaths of liberals who patronizes Dunkin Donuts or even loves it. The two best way to put it is the Starbucks crowd or the hipsters/yuppies. Even then, it doesn't perfectly fit, but it is a lot better description than liberals.
I love coffee . . .
By Chris Dowd
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:27pm
. . . and I think Dunk's is pretty good. I like their blend in the morning mostly.
WalMart Betting Pool
By John-W
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 4:18pm
Liberty Plaza (Central Square) in East Boston. A.J. Wright just closed and the Shaw's has been anemic ever since the Market Basket opened up its own zipcode in Chelsea (seriously, you could drive two Smartcars down the aisles side by side and not knock over the Cheerios). My first time there I actually saw the manager (or assistant manager) of the Shaw's in there with a baseball hat pulled down over his head and his cart heaped with stuff.
Dudley Square could be an option...in the BRA's mind at least.
Millenium Park is in West Roxbury, but whatever
By anon
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 2:58pm
you Harvard employees wouldn't know the diff.
It was a joke, but whatever
By adamg
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 4:05pm
You people who haven't been to the top of Millennium Park, from which you can see Hyde Park, wouldn't know the diff.
Que?
By Kaz
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:22pm
1) It's Millennium (two n's). I know so because I've seen the green sign, in person even!
2) I don't work for Harvard. I didn't go to school at Harvard. I did catch the 86 bus there for a while when my company was located in Kendall Square.
3) You could see a Wal-Mart from the Pru or Hancock building if it were on top of Millennium Park! That doesn't mean I think it's located in Copley Square.
Thanks for playing, though.
Darn
By Eighthman
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 2:17pm
Mini Walmarts are almost twice as big as the empty Star Market in Somerville. Oh well.
Why would any thinking person
By RJ
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 2:23pm
be opposed to this?
The horror- opening a store with good prices that would create jobs, tax revenues... those bastids!
Lose the 'tude, anti-WalMart snobs.
Jobs + tax revenues = net loss for communities
By dga
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 3:36pm
Look at the studies. The net effect of a Walmart is often a loss of income to the surrounding community, between the public assistance the employees need, the other businesses going out of business, and the concessions Walmart extracts from desperate local governments.
Where?
By Rich
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 3:51pm
Where are these studies? I'm curious to see them and who authored them.
NC State review
By Kaz
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:13pm
Here's a 2-page review from NC State that links to 2 studies on WalMart's effect on job creation/loss and relative salary loss.
Why the hate?
By Rich
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:37pm
Your linked article notes that net fiscal impacts to a community are likely to be postive (Table 1). Besides some indirect economic impacts, it seems to be fairly positive or inconclusive.
I'm still not seeing why Wal-Mart is so bad and other big-box retailers are good (or less bad).
I don't think Wal-Mart is looking to move into the Back Bay or Beacon Hill, so I don't see how the addition of another big-box retailer is going to harm aesthetics or any other part of the community's culture.
Walmart's dark side
By anon
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:04am
Watch this, I haven't stepped foot in a Walmart since I did. It clearly explains why people are so anti-Walmart in a very entertaining way:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
'thinking person,' listen up!
By anon
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:18pm
Research before you type. Wal-Mart gets many many years of BIG tax breaks when they move into a community. Do they pay wages that anyone can live off of? NO. Are there prices that much cheaper no and often Target and amazon.com (when you get free shipping which isn't too hard if you buy in bulk) are much cheaper.
Why wouldn't they?
By Kaz
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:46pm
Assume that these "good prices" means local customers no longer shop at other stores where prices were higher for the same goods. That also means that they are going to pay less in sales tax. That means lower tax revenue. In fact, the only way sales tax revenue would go up would be by drawing in more customers than would have shopped for those same products within your commercial zones anyways. Why would anyone outside of Boston go downtown to get to a Wal-Mart? They already have a Wal-Mart north (Lynn), south (Quincy), and west (Framingham) of the city.
These "good prices" also come at a cost to the undiscerning customer. The products are usually inferior to their more expensive counterparts. Not only is it a "worse" product in terms of quality, but also usually in longevity too. If you spend $10 on that $20 shirt, but you have to replace it twice as fast, you haven't really saved anything at all.
"Creating jobs" is great in theory but it depends on the kind of job created. Part-time labor means someone isn't getting paid enough to live off of it and it usually means they get no employer health care. At the same time, these jobs are likely coming at the expense of other local retail. That's a negative effect on the job level and flattens any positives. Also, unlike non-union companies, like Toyota, where employees get packages competitive with their GM union counterparts, Wal-Mart is more anti-union because it would force them to do better for their employees. Instead, they do poorly by their non-management workforce...and use that as a way to save money to further cut pricing ("yay, this TV is dirt cheap...wait, did that employee just give me tuberculosis?").
Finally, Wal-Marts often draw in a lot of customers. That's extra traffic and other public utility cost. They also use meetings like the ones they're having now with officials to make it seem like cake and pie for them to come here. Then, as Stevil likes to rail against, they get sweetheart deals for the cost of moving in. They get tax discounts and matching efforts from the city to reconfigure whole roadways. That's all cost that comes out of all this "tax revenue" they're generating.
There's also ancillary costs mentioned in the review I linked to in another post. Local companies hire local tax attorneys and other needed consultants to help run their businesses. Wal-Mart does all of that in Arkansas. As they run other companies out of business, these other service industries suffer locally as well.
So, that's just a few reasons why a thinking person would be opposed to a Wal-Mart. The better question is were you thinking deeply at all?
All that you mention above
By FranklinRider
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 6:15pm
All that you mention above can be true about any number of companies you probably shop at every week (e.g. Amazon).
If you don't like wal-mart, fine, don't shop there. But, why do you get to decide for me? Rich asked to question above and no one has really answered it. What is the difference between wal-mart and target? I don't see a difference....
Well? Which is it?
By anon
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 1:33am
@Kaz, it's fine to talk about Wal-Mart's lower prices generating less sales tax revenue for the state. But then you go on to point out the inferior quality of Wal-Mart's products, saying "If you spend $10 on that $20 shirt, but you have to replace it twice as fast, you haven't really saved anything at all."
That may be true, but you've just undercut your first point about less tax revenue. You can't have both arguments on the table.
Split the difference
By Kaz
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 7:39am
Not every $10 shirt dissolves like paper mache in the rain.
Not every purchase leads to tax losses compared to the comparable product bought elsewhere.
However, over time enough of both situations occur to lead to an ultimate loss in the tax base and loss of quality to the consumer. That's economic observation by people who study these things, not just conjecture by me.
amazon
By FranklinRider
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:36am
Kaz, I find your tax base arguement to be a bit disingenuous. At least Wal-Mart produces some sort of tax base for the city and state, whereas Amazon and many internet retailers produce zero tax revenues for the city and state.
Where are your pitchforks for Amazon and the like?
Apples and pears
By Kaz
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:34am
You also could have said that New Hampshire charges no sales tax, so where are my cries for closing the border to NH so people are forced to shop in MA, right?
There are plenty of ways to get around paying into the sales tax base. Why would be interested in poking another hole in it just because the first leaks already exist? Each one is also a different flavor of that generic problem of losing sales taxes and each has its own solutions and levels of ire. However, buying from Wal-Mart and buying from any other physical retailer and showing the loss of tax base is the same flavor. I listed it because it's an often unconsidered potential cost on the system that joins all of the other costs of bringing in a Wal-Mart. Amazon and other online outlets are something that's only going to be solved by adjusting the tax code through legislation. It's a completely different discussion.
I'm personally not totally convinced that a Wal-Mart inside Boston would significantly alter the sales tax base. However, I think it deserves mentioning and consideration that it *could*. I think it's more likely to harm it than help it, even though I'm sure every Wal-Mart lobbyist will try to woo our politicians with sales figures from all of their stores that have succeeded in taking over other markets. Of course, most of those include new outside buyers coming to the exampled Wal-Mart who didn't shop in the area previously. That just won't be the case here. Wal-Marts are already established in all 3 cardinal directions and driving into the city just for a Wal-Mart run isn't going to appeal to anyone.
Sam's Schlub
By JPSouth
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 3:54pm
"a store with good prices that would create jobs, tax revenues"
This was the inscription on the Walton family Christmas card this year. Hearing a myth like this makes it much easier to believe in Santa Claus.
I guess the rumored Target
By J
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 4:10pm
I guess the rumored Target next to the Triology in fenway could just as easily be a walmart.
South Bay Target and WalMart Plants
By DotWatcher
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 4:32pm
The Target at South Bay has city approvals to expand into the former auto service section closest to Southamton St, which was left fallow since the Kmart left.
They are expanding their grocery dept, which is already quite large.
I go to the Quincy WalMart during the spring/summer for their cheap garden/plant section and have been to the Brockton & Raynham (SUPER-CENTER!)stores for the same reason.
Unfortunately, not all the stores devote the same level of care to the plants, if at all! You gotta get there just after they've come in and then later on, have a good eye for what can be salvaged from the 50% off selection of dying material.
Fenway, did you say FENWAY?
By Stevil
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 4:55pm
Now that would ROCK!!!!
(and might explain why they are talking to Mike Ross - a somewhat curious part of the story.
Ross
By adamg
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:36pm
Could be Fenway or could be they started talking to him when he was still council president. Or [cue creepy music] it could be because he's thinking of putting it in the other old building on the Common.
Yup, thats probably why Mike
By J
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 3:08pm
Yup, thats probably why Mike Ross is involved.
The entire 2nd and 3rd floor of this building is to be occupied by a single "anchor" retailer.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/bdurden/boy...
Note that "big box" best buy, staples and bed bath n beyond would be a block away.
put in roslindale Ma where
By anon
Fri, 01/28/2011 - 5:40pm
put in roslindale Ma where the new stop shop is located
The last time I checked ...
By RJ
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 11:20am
no one is forced to shop @ Wal-Mart. Perhaps there is a reason many consumers do so; namely, their lower prices, and their wide selection of low-to-moderate priced items, prices and items which are often not provided by the mom-and-pop shops some here seem determined to limit city consumers to (see also: the Hi-Lo/Whole Foods debate.)
Why are some opposed to choice? You who wish to patronize the mom-and-pops, do so. If there are enuf of you they will be able to withstand the competiton of Wal-Mart.
At what cost?
By Kaz
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:56pm
Why do they choose to do so? Because they're either too poor, stupid, or uncaring to consider the ramifications of doing so.
Why do you think Wal-Mart would be such a boon for the city?
What an arrogant, condescending
By RJ
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:50pm
comment. Of course- people need the likes of you to "save them" from themselves, as if they lack the capacity to decide where and how best to shop, spend their hard-earned money, etc...
The ramifications? As I wrote previously: prices, selection, relative quality. What do you have against people exercising their freedom to choose?
Wal-Mart would be another choice for consumers, one with ample selection and competitive prices. Those are boons. You are more-than-free to shop elsewhere. But who are you and your ilk to attempt to deny consumers the right to shop locally at one of the most successful- and affordable- retailers in the world?
That comment was awful, but...
By JPSouth
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:41pm
you, sir, are a complete shill. "Choice for consumers" my eye. Wal-Mart tends to leave no choice for consumers once it comes into town but, in Boston's case, it would be a "choice" of the quality goods we already have access to or cheap (note, not inexpensive as Wal-Mart did a bang-up job both raising prices and "streamlining SKUs" or eliminating brands in 2010) crap.
You're presenting consumers the "choice" of a business that eliminates choice both in its communities and in its aisles.
Go bang out another press release, you Bentonville flack. Sorry you couldn't make money as an obit writer.
So you people need
By RJ
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 9:05am
to make choices for all? You people- not the market, not consumers, but you, with your self-perceived enlightened and informed views, must "protect" others from making what you perceive as the "wrong" choices? Understand- people CHOOSE to shop at Wal-Mart, Target, Whole Foods, wherever... or not. NO ONE is forced to do so. You elitists and authoritarians don't agree with their choices? Too damn bad.
Not a shill at all, JPSouth, just someone who has confidence in his fellow citizens to make decisions on their own. You should try it, instead of attempting to force your values upon all. You'd have made a great commissar (since you- childishly- feel the need to make personal insults.)
"You people"
By JPSouth
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:47am
And there's your problem. This is basically a town full of "you people" and, instead of showing any evidence of Wal-Mart's merit and convince the other side that wall mart is a good idea, you shout at them as being "elitists" and "authoritarians" while ignoring evidence of Wal-Mart's reduction of "choice":
http://blogs.forrester.com/augie_ray/10-03-22-roi_...
"Not a shill at all": That's funny. I've poke around the Internets and noticed that when there's hubbub about Wal-Mart coming into a major city, a poster named "RJ" tends to spring up. This poster sometimes goes by the full name RJ Murphy, who just happens to be a buyer at Wal-Mart. Given that your last few comments sounded like press release boilerplate, it didn't seem far-fetched that you and he would be one in the same.
"Self-perceived enlightened and informed views." Yes, doing research and backing up one's argument is just so tedious. Why not just yell talking points, set up straw men and make reductive arguments based only on the rage you're feeling at the time? It's so much simpler and doesn't waste so much time and energy being "constructive." It's the debate methodology and worldview that a company loyalist -- or shill -- spends a lifetime cultivating.
Imagine that...
By RJ
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 12:16pm
more than one "RJ" on the entire Internet- whoda thunk it?!
Tool.
You and your ilk still cannot get it through your heads that people DO NOT need you or anyone else to make their choices for them, to "save them" from themselves from making consumer choices that do not fit with your agenda. Again- no one is forced to shop @ Wal-Mart, Target, Whole foods, or anywhere else. Why are you so opposed to consumers making their own choices based upon THEIR self-interest, not yours, or whomever you purport to speak for?
As for shills... which labor union do you shill for?
Again
By JPSouth
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 3:47pm
You waste dozens of characters throwing around ad hominems like "tool" and "your ilk," but don't make one reasoned argument or shred of evidence for this Wal-Mart besides a "choice" Wal-Mart doesn't present -- because, as the links above note, they eliminate brands, raise prices and aren't the low-priced retail altruists you describe.
Anything that goes in the spaces Wal-Mart seeks presents a "choice." A landfill would give consumers another "choice" about where to put their garbage. A sewage treatment plant would give residents another means of processing their excrement. A strip club would give bargoers another choice for late-night entertainment spending. All are subject to neighborhood oversight.
As much as you think "we" are trying to "save" people, "you" are trying to "force" people into accepting a business in their neighborhood that A) Underpays and underinsures its workers and creates burden that the entire public -- not just those who "choose" to shop at Wal-Mart -- will have to bear B) Won't carry the brands they want because they're "streamlining selection" and "aiding" choice, as if consumers are chimps that need help shopping and C) No longer have the "low low" prices they once claimed thanks to a market that's turned against them.
Union? Who's shilling for a union? Someone considering a beneath-the-barrel Wal-Mart job would be better served applying at FedEx, where the pay is stellar, the benefits are above reproach and the management is as union-resistant as they come. This isn't about unions, this is about a bad business with an irresponsible and outdated model meeting resistance from a populace that knows better. "We" live here too, "we" have a say thanks largely to our civic process and "we" can stop any operation that we feel would be a detriment to our community. You may not think "we" are offering you a choice, but "we" -- Mr. Murphy -- won't have an objectionable business forced upon "us" by the likes of you.
Your argument is wafer thin and devoid of both proof and value. However, if I was being paid for being a corporate comments-field warrior, I'd be keeping this up as well. Let's see if we can get this topic to 200 comments and get you a nice vacation house near the hot springs.
Nah...
By RJ
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 4:39pm
you're the master of the ad hominem attack. You wrongly assume that anyone who doesn't see your side re. this must be a "shill." And you attempt- but fail- to obfuscate the issue with your silly analogies to landfills, sewage plants, and strip joints. No one is proposing opening a landfill, sewage plant, or strip joint to compete against locally existing ones. Apples and oranges, sport.
Meanwhile, continue to show us how misguided others are and that we need you to save people from their own choices. No force on my part; I'm perfectly willing to allow people to locally shop wherever they choose, Wal-Mart or wherever. I wouldn't seek to deny consumers another alternative and letting them decide where to shop. Too bad you can't say the same.
Freedom to choose- try it, you might like it.
Right to choose?
By PPLMer
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 9:35pm
That may be the first time anyone's put Wal-Mart and "right to choose" in the same thought. This is the same store that bans music it doesn't like and didn't carry emergency contraception until this state forced it into doing so five years ago. Wal-Mart offers the same amount of "choice" as a Comcast -- err, "Xfinity" -- coverage area.
It's because you are a shill, Mr. Murphy
By JPSouth
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 9:41pm
You work for Wal-Mart. You go on boards to support the company blindly. You're a shill.
No, nobody's proposing any of those things, but they're proposing something just as objectionable: A retailer that doesn't pay a working wage or provide adequate medical coverage, eliminates brands consumers love, raises "rollback" prices while the consumer isn't looking and ultimately drags down any person or municipality associated with it. Please keep telling Bostonians -- who already have the "choice" to support such a feeble organization by going to Quincy -- how great a "choice" Wal-Mart is while completely ignoring its obvious detriment to the community.
Shill or no shill you lose
By Stevil
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:27pm
JP - You might not like what they do and RJ may indeed be a shill - but they have a right to open a store wherever they want and it's not government's job to stand in their way. Don't like it, make laws like Vermont or Japan so it's almost impossible to open a big store. Better yet - open a store concept yourself that attracts even more customers than Walmart. Good luck with that. (seriously, given that all kinds of stores compete very successfuly with Walmart - and don't behave any better in terms of wages, prices or benefits and a host of other issues your whole argument is pretty weak).
Personally I'll be shopping there regularly if they open in Fenway - and they won't be taking biz from any local retailers - the stuff I'll buy there I buy at Target now - unless of course I can't get to Target - then I buy it at CVS.
Uh...
By ClarkW
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:51pm
the government's job is to enforce the will of the electorate. If that electorate doesn't want a Wal-Mart in its neighborhood or city, it is the government's job to deny that business the privilege of operating within their district.
Indeed.
By Chris Dowd
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 1:22am
Society doesn't exist to serve corporations- they exist to serve us and must comport to the values of the communities they operate in and if they can't- then they have no "right" to do business in that community.
As much as I'm with you, Steve
By MartFan
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:00pm
It won't happen. Sam Walton himself always said that Wal-Mart shouldn't build where it isn't wanted. Boston has never struck me as a place that "wanted" a Wal-Mart, which is why I truck it out to Lynn and Quincy. As frustrated as this made me, I just accept that there are some places Wal-Mart will just never be. This piece in the Globe drove that home.
Just one of the costs of sharing a democracy with certain people. The JP guy's argument would be much weaker if he were the only one making it. The unions already jumped on it. Ugh.
That's fine
By Stevil
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:14am
If it's Wal-Mart making the decision - but not if it's some self-serving keeper of retail sanctity politician.
clark above is wrong on two fronts - a) government's role is to make, enforce and interpret laws that apply equally to everyone - Target and Wal-Mart included. As long as they both obey the laws - they are allowed to do business here. b) As for enforcing the will of the people - your will or my will? That's why rule "A" applies.
Politicians don't get to pick what businesses are allowed in and not - this isn't some backwater banana republic even though we occasionally do our best to make it so (granted - not sure how many banana trees you'll get to grow in a snow bank).
Keep at it sport...
By RJ
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 6:08am
next you (and you other aliases) will be saying that I also work for Whole Foods because I opined that they should be allowed to open in JP.
Come with some better stuff, small fry. And while you're at it, try and have a little faith in your fellow citizens to make their own choices, where to shop and where to work, not have them dictated by you. As for going to Quincy- you do realize that some folks might not have the transportation to get out there? And why should they have to? Why would you deny them the opportunity to shop- and have jobs- locally? What is your problem?
And it's worth asking- why do you have such a hard-on for the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club company? Were you fired by them? Talk about shills.
You are dismissed.
Another Bentonville paycheck well earned
By JPSouth
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:59am
Without one link, quotation or shred of evidence to back it up. I thought maybe there'd be some resources or some solid reasoning behind this argument of yours other than the company line. Guess there just wasn't enough space under the bridge.
The region produces batches of Marshmallow Fluff with more substance. My fellow citizens seem to have just as many questions about this as I do and seem as opposed to it as I am. If a neighborhood lobbies for a Wal-Mart, I'll listen to it's argument, but right now we're discussing a business nobody asked for sniffing hydrants in a place where nobody wants it.
As for your last little vulgar remark, Wal-Mart is the topic at hand and you work for them, so why would I discuss anything else here? Wanna talk snow? Take it to another thread. I think your bit of innuendo should be directed at another poster.
To RJ Murphy
By ClarkW
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 9:50pm
Does the Walton family like a nice, long cuddle or the rough stuff? I just figure since you're in bed with them, you'd have the best perspective. P.S. Don't consumers here already have the "choice" of hitting WalMart.com or going to Quincy?
Have fun in Wally World...
Seriously, man
By JPSouth
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:34pm
I tend to agree with you a lot and still don't feel great about Wal-Mart, but a comment like that's not going to make it with anyone.
Slow down Yoko...
By John-W
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 9:28pm
It might have been a bit obnoxious, but sadly not far off the mark. One thing no one seems interested in talking about is exactly WHY WalMart is able to offer such fabulously low prices (until they kill the competition and then raise their prices). This inability to explore the why's of things in our society is what leads to horrible outcomes which people look at all aghast and say "how did this happen?" "WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?" and "but why do they hate us?"
Local stores deal with middlemen, who deal with distributors, who deal with producers, who deal with unions and/or workers...or at least it used to be that way. Each one of those transactions costs the end consumer but also provides jobs to all those people in the middle, who then go one to pay taxes and consume things. Now through the miracles of vertical integration corporations like WalMart are all of those things. The global race to the bottom for cheap labor and non-existent environmental regulations provides us with outrageously cheap (in all senses of the word) clothing, home goods, electronics, whatever. A small chunk of those savings go to the consumer and the vast majority go to the owners of the corporations who bank the money and avoid paying taxes.
Thanks to the savings on your fruit-of-the-looms, kitchen gadgets, etc., we have no manufacturing in this country to speak of. Politicians are so desperate to find ANYTHING a U.S. worker with a high school education can do that they'll roll out casinos as if they are the panacea for our economic woes. We try to jumpstart solar panel companies in MA with over $50 million in tax breaks and they STILL can't compete with the Chinese factories.
We have sold out our economic future in exchange for some short-term savings on a bunch of cheap shit that no one needs and that will be crap in no time and you'll have to buy again anyways.
So referring to the U.S. consumer (we're not citizens anymore) as cheap, ignorant, stupid or uncaring, I really don't think is that much of a stretch. Too bad it hurts people's feelings.
It's not the content I'm disputing
By JPSouth
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:32am
It's the context. What you say is true, but that won't exactly help the cause when the people you're trying to convince are the same demographic you're deriding.
The funny thing is . . .
By Chris Dowd
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:55am
. . . that Walmart's "business model" exists because of political favoritism. Walmart can pump millions into political campaigns- anonymously now as well- to ensure, protect, and expand their interests- but somehow it is intolerable oppression for people to oppose their monopoly march? Give me a break. If the Walton's lived here I might be more amenable to their organization- but they don't- and they don't care about Massachusetts or Boston. They care about their bottom line- which is fine- nothing wrong with that- but please stop with libertarian pie in the sky non sense that assumes some fantasy market equal and fair level playing field. There isn't one and never has been. Could the Ayn Rand Austrian school of economic whatevers- just go away- stop it? You are irrelevant and I don't want to hear it anymore.
wal-mart
By nicole
Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:12pm
I'm moving to Boston from Little Rock, AR and the last thing I want to see is another Wal-Mart. I prefer Target anyway so if that means going to South Bay or Watertown over a Wal-Mart in the middle of the city that is fine with me. Wal-Mart in Boston is like Dunks in Arkansas, they don't mix
Welcome.
By Chris Dowd
Mon, 01/31/2011 - 6:07am
Hope you like Boston. Kinda funny- but saw a big white caddy with an Arkansas plate yesterday in downtown Boston.
Wal-Mart is a horrible employer
By anon
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 1:24am
They make their sales clerks in Texas pay for each plastic baggy they give customers (who's to say they won't do it here?), their pay is slightly above minimum wage, they purposely hold workers hours below the minimum to qualify for company healh plans (MA taxes us for not having health insurance), and they constantly make the list of MA companies with the fifty plus employees using MassHealth. I'll be at every public meeting to speak out against a WalMart in Boston.
Besides, anyone truly wanting to shop at Walmart can always go to Quincy, or shop online at warlmart.com.
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dhcfp/r/pubs/09/5...
Enough Of The Wally World Bashing!
By Joanne Hinnenkamp
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 5:40pm
Love em or leave em I say...
This Wally World is closed, Joanne
By ClarkW
Sun, 01/30/2011 - 9:46pm
The moose at the front entrance should have told you.
Walmart in the news
By anon
Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:24pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110203/us_nm/us_walma...
Pages